Message-ID: <CAGVrzcbRggJV+5+EuZnXVoU+qdK9ugPRL+J-mp-UraGuo19jnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:11:55 -0700
From:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	dborkman <dborkman@...hat.com>, ogerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	jesse <jesse@...ira.com>, pshelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	azhou <azhou@...ira.com>, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vyasevic <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@...tstofly.org>
Subject: Re: [patch net-next RFC 0/4] introduce infrastructure for support of
 switch chip datapath

2014-03-25 12:35 GMT-07:00 Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:00:09PM +0000, Thomas Graf wrote:
>> On 03/25/14 at 01:39pm, Neil Horman wrote:
>> > No, but it would be really nice if these smaller devices could take advantage of
>> > this infrastructure.  Looking at it, I don't see why thats not possible.  The
>> > big trick (as we've discussed in the past), is using a net_device structure to
>> > take advantage of all the features that net_devices offer while not enabling the
>> > device specific features that some hardware doesn't allow.
>> >
>> > For instance the broadcom chips that live in many wireless routers would be well
>> > served by the model jiri has here as far as Media level interface control is
>> > concerned (i.e. ifup/down/speed/duplex/etc), but its a bit lacking in that
>> > net_devices are assumed to support L3 protocol configuration (i.e. they can have
>> > ip addresses assigned to them), which you can't IIRC do on these chips.
>>
>> How about a new device flag indicating pure L2 mode? Any L3 address
>> configuration would fail with EAFNOSUPP.
>>
> Yeah, we've discussed that before, and it seems like a good idea, though I'm not
> sure that its flexible enough.  It clearly prevents L3 operations on devices
> that can only do L2, which is great, but that may not be sufficient for some
> devices.  For example, what if you wanted to use ebtables on an L2 port where
> the hardware can't mirror the actions of a given table rule?  Do we need to
> expand out those capabilities?
>
>> > Would it be worth considering a private interface model?  That is to say:
>> >
>> > 1) Ports on a switch chip are accessed using net_device structures, but
>> > registered to a private list contained within the switch device, rather than to
>> > the net namespaces device list.
>>
>> > 2) Access to the switch ports via user space is done through the master switch
>> > interface with additional netlink attributes specifying the port on the switch
>> > to access (or not to access the master switch device directly)
>>
>> > Such a model I think might fit well with Jiri's code here and provide greater
>> > flexibility for a wider range of devices.  It would of course require
>> > augmentation for user space, but the changes would be additive, so I think they
>> > would be reasonable.  This would also allow the switch device to have a hook in
>> > the control path to block or allow features that the hardware may or may not
>> > support while still being able to use the existing net_device infrastructure to
>> > support these operations as they are normally carried out.
>>
>> I believe this would defeat the main advantage of reusing net_device
>> model which is compatibility with the well established standard toolset.
>>
>> In an ideal world, we represent what is possible using the existing
>> net_device model.
>>
>
> Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm not suggesting that we abandon the use of a
> net_device to do any of this work, only that we add a layer of indirection to
> get to it.  By Augmenting the existing network device stack to allow
> registration of net_devices to arbitrary lists, rather than to a fixes
> per-net-namespace global device list, we can operate net_devices that are only
> visible within the scope of a given switch fabric.  User space still works the
> same way, it just requires the specification of additional information when
> speaking to ports on a switch device that may not be directly accessible via the
> cpu.  For example, if a systems has a directly connected nic (em1), and a switch
> fabric with a master bridge port (sw1), and 10 external ports (sw1pX), we could
> access them all from user space via ip link show.  for example:
>
> 1) ip link show:
> em1
> sw1
>
> 2) ip link show sw1
> sw1
>
> 3) ip link show -p sw1
> sw1p0
> sw1p1
> sw1p2...

I was scratching my head about why we might want to expose sw1 as a
separate net_device, but I think this is a good model as it allows for
a "seamless" switch awareness to be constructed, and allows for
controlling the CPU/management port(s) of a given Ethernet switch
separately, which is valuable. It also makes it possible to expose the
multiple CPU/management ports of a given switch when that exists, and
finally, there might be special firmware running on the Ethernet
switch, and that specific 'sw1' net_device could be the one to use to
talk to this via sockets, ioctls, whatever.

>
>
> The idea is to augment user space to allow the visibiliy of ports through the
> switch device, not directly, but using the same existing mechanisms.  We can
> reuse all the existing infrastruture, but with this model, control must pass
> through the switch device driver, allowing it to taylor available features by
> passing the netlink request on to the appropriate netdevice, or sending back an
> error itself.
>
>> On top of that, like for VFs, we provide extended nested attributes or
>> alternate control paths such as via OVS that provide the additional
>> flexibility and control required by the more advanced devices.
> I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance here.  Are you suggesting that to
> make this modification, we would need to augment more than a single set of
> netlink control paths?

Not sure if I got this right, but there might be additional control
knobs required for specific Ethernet switch features that do not map
nicely, if at all with existing interfaces provided by ip/tc,
ethtool... although I guess one would say, well, then go add these
APIs instead of creating "extended" ones?
-- 
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists